Questions V

What is the End of Philosophy?

Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik, is the systematic work that attempts to make tragedy 
eternal. The most fundamental tragedy is the Apollonian and Dionysian. However, let us think this 
historically. The historical is a philisophic conception, thus, under Nietzsche's tag, “Dionysian - Apollonian”
, it is Apollonian, thus it discriminates and separates. History names experience. Seen from Socrates, 
in the Platonic cannon, the “erotic” is the ultimate principle of the Apollonian order: it expresses wisdom 
or sophos as a discriminatory knowing. For each situation, the wise know what is the right action. How to 
be. Wisdom is “the many”. Rationality is the science of the many as the principle. 

Historically: Athens, the “citizen state”, polis, rejects the mafia states, most of all thematizing all evil as 
Thebes, and, over and against the mafia place, the place of families, of vendettas, of irrational violence, 
it thinks eros. Eros is “tragic” because it is not able to hear the Dionysian. Its ear is for logos, speech. 
That “peculiar form of life”, consciousness, the Life Science, ‘natural philosophy’, Biology. Excursus:

In our own time philosophy becomes physics. Ergo, The intelligent mathematician John Conway and the 
physicist Simon Kochen speak of the “free will of the atom”, this notion, wholly naive of serious philisophic 
thought, stands in the place of intellectual authority. It is the most obstructing force of our age; a freak of 
nihilistic technology. Because the apparatus of measurement can not predict the path in quantum physics
, unlike in Newtonian physics (where, for example, if one had a domino, and turned it 45 degrees, and 
again, and a third time, and, once more to the first position, this would describe the meaning of time, 
exhaustively. And both backwards and forwards.) it is said that the path is “random” (when the domino 
can only be tracked backwards, but not forward, and not even backward in the case of limited data, the 
“it must have been here in the earlier position” being underivable), but that the randomness is “free”. 
A failure of calculation is passed off as a truth. What is this randomness? In the first place, one must 
distinguish a randomness bound by a sample space, from a randomness simpliciter. If the randomness 
means that a stochastic outlay is bound by a bell curve, such that the expectation is always produced, 
this “randomness” is rule-bound (true, according to the human psyche). But, if the exception is based 
on an empirical guess, such that the outliers must be, here and there, erased as “static”, 
the randomness is “free” or wholly unscientific. Either way one learns nothing 
fundamental about “freedom”. The merely formal argument given by the 
mathematician and physicist: God could as well read off a list of “random” results already prepared, 
but invisible to us, explicates randomness only so far as it is explicated into utter vagueness, and means 
nothing. 

As technology, as the meaningless frivolity of intelligent prattle, physics becomes the worst of all 
obstructions to thought. Ergo, something which has no scientific content, a mere, “it happens”, rises 
to the level of a difficulty for thought. This must be made clear: Galileo posits a thought experiment in 
the place of a inner grasp of the things: He says, in the case of a vacuum, one can think like this. So, 
that the thing keeps going by entropy if not obstructed in the empty space, lacking the resistance, for 
example, of air. Because no such vacuum exists, and there is always obstruction of some kind, a 
thought experiment is set against experience as a principle of calculation. After several centuries of 
propaganda this becomes automatic in the popular discussion, such that imaginary, though rigorous 
and calculable, phantasies are set as higher in the popular mind than what happens. Why? It is because 
they are clearer, more perfect. Einstein attacks the neo-kantians on this point, since he sees that to say 
that a human is human, a book is a book, is no more, and no less, a matter of a claim to a transcendental 
phantasy than is space and time. However, then he goes on to treat time and space by the standard 
of the apparatus! Ergo, not in the manner of experience (not of the "rough" or emperical, 
but of common sense as direct understanding or clear intuition). Such that “curved space” means nothing 
other than a claim concerning the count, by a measurement secured by an apparatus, given as a unit, 
concerning the clicks of certain measurable distance. Such that if a to c takes 3 time units, it seems bent 
when set along an a to c that takes 4 time units in another region. The radial obstruction of a empercially 
faster here, slower there, into a abstract natural calculability: this means: the imagination of man, in his 
ability to think numbers, and geometrical forms, is set ahead of the essence of things as a nature.

Man imagines: e.g., a three-dimensional shape, and advances to itself the, it is no theory, envisioned 
truth: it has 24 right angles. Ergo, at each corner three right angles, yes, according to the thinking of a 
solid square thought as truth, as what always is. This science then posits the inner envisaging of man as 
truth. This is Apollonian thinking! But, the Dionysian is no less the mark of man’s first break from 
primordial absorption in what comes to pass. The Dionysian is always already tragic by this thinking. 
It bathes in “Rausch” which will not give it leave to calculate, but, as what has “raised its eyes”. 

In Athens, the educated, having nomos, are set against the blood feud of what rules in the “trash heap” 
of all cities. Already what is more beautiful, dreaming with a divine absolute spark, is the “good” life. So 
far as biology becomes one attitude of thought alongside chemistry, anthropology or psychology, 
chemistry and physics, so far as life as the peculiar “consciousness”, is said against physics, the tragedy 
reaches its “End”. Physics is always said in order to set the human aside, as the what is outside of 
thought. Yet, strangely, it is wholly a matter of imagination so far as it is a science or a statement of the 
truth (as what ‘always is’). As what is outside of thought it is mere accident or phenomena by the older 
thinking. This miasma of bewildering nonsense seeps into daily speach as the “they say it”, they say it 
for they are thoughtless and reject thought. 

Being as letting be then lets be the “Je pense , donc je suis” of Descartes as the being of thought, 
and the being of “I”, such that being is said, rather than, as in Husserl, the “it can not be a mistake”, 
this foundation of investigation. 

The being as the being of what is being is then the investigation as common sense opinions as beings. 
Each being, as it comes forth, rather than being doubted, or suspended in the anxious essence of what 
is no longer natural, in the “maybe it is not so” of the gigantic abeyance of the: what has “the point” 
(e.g., of the West, which is no longer Europe, and no longer ‘indo-germanic’) been. This falling back 
into the essences as what is being is what is in question. Ergo, one must distinguish, first, carefully, 
nature form essence. The thinking of Husserl. But, then, essence form being. This we shall consider 
more carefully as we continue in the methodus. Methedus, this means not only the path as what holds 
as gratuitous source of freedom in the thinking, but rather, it is. The “it is”, too, is. This is a is as an is.

In Nietzsche, the is is a escape from the nihilism, as a “the peculiar form of life called consciousness” 
holds back the driving into the lower confusion of the primordial emergence of the Apollonian and 
Dionysian out of the abyss of the unconscious (where what is said, of course, is inadmissible as a 
conception of the Apollonian), but this thinking in speaking the “letting be”, pats dirt against the walls 
of a burrow in another way. This, “poetry” is no poem as what is illogical and unphilosophical, rather it 
is metaphor (as the dialectical counterpart at the End, of muthos) as what is prior to the noun, agenda 
simple, and the verb, agenda plus time (if thought formally).